I want to take a
step back and look not at what Ramus
argues, but how he argues. As many
people already noted, Ramus’ “rips” or “cuts” into Quintilian. Adjectives like “jerk”
floated through my mind as I read this section, but perhaps Ramus chose this harsh,
critical style for a very specific rhetorical purpose. A couple people
mentioned in their blog posts that Ramus’ authority on the subject is rather
weak; we might speculate that because he was born in poverty and had to fight
his way to the top (Introduction 674-675), Ramus probably realized his ethos
appeal was lacking—and therefore resorted to his over-the-top style of critique.
Even though as a reader, I lost respect for Ramus, eventually I started to
truly doubt the quality of Quintilian’s writing and theories—perhaps in part
because of a few of Ramus’ counterarguments and possibly mostly because of how
frequently I was told how “stupid” Quintilian is.
Consider the
tone of modern critics, whether they review food, literature, movies, clothing,
etc.; most of them sound exactly like Ramus according to the jerk-o-meter, and
yet, people look to them as experts and sources of authority on whatever item
is being critiqued. Someone may argue that “yes, we regard critics as experts
because they are experts,” but the
same argument could be made for Ramus. Why then, do they go to extra lengths to
incorporate belittling sarcasm and cutting insults into their critique? Maybe
such a rhetorical move automatically moves us to discredit, a least a little
bit, the person or item under critique. Or maybe the effectiveness of this
rhetorical move is culturally-situated; as an American, the ideal to give “everyone
a fair trial” and to consider everyone “innocent until proven otherwise”
perhaps colors my reading experience so that I instinctively first assume that
someone’s words hold some weight or merit. So when I read, “I probably could
not be like him, even if I should wish so; but in fact if I could, I would not
even wish so” (682, top of 2nd column), I think, “Huh, maybe there’s
something to what Ramus is saying—I need only to wait and find out what.” And
by doing so, my trust in Quintilian’s authority begins to slip.
Anyway, I
decided to include this short clip from “Ratatouille” for kicks-‘n-giggles; it
illustrates my point about the stereotypical critic holding places of high
authority.
Sadie;
ReplyDeleteAmid everyone else's (admittedly not unfounded) fixation on Ramus' jerk-wad bedside manner, I have to say I appreciated your fresh take of analyzing his style.
The thought of ethos being needed to the point of desperation in order to secure an audience both in Ramus' time and even today, and the idea that controversy or inflammation can without fail secure so much public attention that ethos is granted through mass attention alone is intriguing. Talking about the printing press in class today made me think about how this begins to be possible for the first time around Ramus' generation. Whereas in past centuries documents were storied as relics, having writings be 'massed produced' (though 'massed' is obviously relative here) allows things to circulate in more public spheres than ever before. It's only through hype that the 'inflammation' behind Ramus' views would gain any sort of credibility, and it becomes an interesting way to look at the social situation as well as Ramus himself.
While in this case I'm not sure how much leniency I would actually give the guy, I have to concede that looking at his style beyond mere criticism is a worthwhile thing to do.
The reasons for Ramus's outpouring of contempt for Quintilian (and often Aristotle and even, to a lesser degree, Cicero) are difficult for me to understand, although you offer a few key ideas about how Ramus might lead us to question Quintilian's ethos and abilities. From a modern perspective, his method of argument seems to make little sense. Critics might be scathing in our times, but much of their writing is for general audiences not well versed in the subjects under consideration. I'm thinking of those popular critics we find writing in magazines and newspaper read by layman. I've never seen reviews meant for a professional, refined audience that have gone so far as to blatantly proclaim that parts of another's work are, for example, "the most stupid trifles" (Ramus 686). And Ramus is clearly speaking to an educated audience that would have done enough reading and studying to understand his points without such blatant contempt thrown in. Perhaps he is inciting emotion and casting doubt on Quintilian, but he also seems to be discrediting his own position through his unnecessary harshness. Isn't one of the first things we learn in critical writing courses that we must be careful to maintain respect even as we act as critics?
ReplyDeleteI think much of my (and a lot of other people's, if the other posts are any indication) confusion here stems from a lack of understanding of the rhetorical situation facing Ramus. The introduction to Ramus only tells us that his style may strike us as arrogant but was "typical of intellectual disputation in his day" (Bizzell and Herzberg 678). But why, heaven help us, do these critics need to perform in such a way? Why was THIS form of argumentation so popular when it appears so course and repellent to so many of us today? These are questions I wish the introduction had at least attempted to answer.
I can understand where his presentation of argument could add to ethos. However, I am not sure that it worked in his favor. Instead of doing all the things that targeting ethos and pathos should do, (i.e. building credibility, getting me to empathize with him, etc.) he really flushed his ethos and pathos down the toilet. His tone made me feel like he was throwing a tantrum and saying anything he could to get me to agree with him. Consequently, I immediately ceased wanting to listen to his rant and was easily distracted by other things.
ReplyDeleteHis rant reminded me of this middle-school student council election speech i watched once upon a time. This girl got up to the front of the room and started bashing on everything all of the current members of student council were doing wrong. Needless to say she wasn't elected, but all I could think as I was sitting in the audience was "why would you talk that way about the leaders before you?" and "what happens if you do get elected? You just made a ton of enemies, they aren't going to respect you." Essentially, Ramus lost my respect. Big time.